Perfectly reasonable question for anyone who incessantly uses words and phrases like "educated" and "smart people think like me" and goes out of their way to insult other people's intelligence as much as you do.
Of course everyone knows you can't answer the question and we all know why:
You're an insecure poseur!
Hahahaha...the idiot troll who can't stop using the word 'educated' doesn't even have a formal education!
Loser!@#0
$40 billion in 1937 is about $660 Billion today. Not chump change but no where near $17 trillion
17 Trillion would be about 1 trillion back in 1937
Not sure if the word trillion even existed back then. it would be like saying Quadrillion or Quintillion or Sextillion today.
Your argument isn't a good one. Sorry.
"printing money creates wealth!"
"If it weren't for Congress, we could print as much as we wanted!"
"Obama's handling of the recession was the epitome of perfection"
"7M sign ups! All Obama does is win!"
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....ad infinitum....
fratfraud the econ virgin poseur!
:laughingb
"If it weren't for Congress, we could print as much as we wanted!"
"Obama's handling of the recession was the epitome of perfection"
"7M sign ups! All Obama does is win!"
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....ad infinitum....
fratfraud the econ virgin poseur!
:laughingb
I'm just saying, they had the same argument at the time when they couldn't even comprehend $17 trillion. It's no different now, just with a bigger number. When it's $100 trillion you guys will still be complaining but just using a bigger number and saying it's not comparable to $17 trillion in 2014. My argument is solid as always. If you can picture what people were thinking in the 30s without knowing what you know now. Which obviously you can't. And if you can explain why they were wrong then but you are right now than you'd probably win a Nobel Prize. But you can't without conjecture which is why you guys stick to the blogosphere.
Of course it will get to $100 trillion. Like I said, your argument is not credible, it's just your opinion. The reason I brought up 1937 is because they had the same opinion about how increasing it past $40 billion would cause the Apocalypse. You have no math behind your opinion, no credibility. It is nothing but conjecture. Which is why you guys stick to the conservative blogosphere and you agree with stuff Russ says. This is way beyond your pay rate if this is your argument.
Of course you would - just like Obama, you're a clueless, arrogant idiot 'progressive' who can't resist stealing other people's money!
General Motors’ bailout vs. taxpayer’s loss
http://nypost.com/2013/12/16/general-motors-bailout-vs-taxpayers-loss/
Keynesian dunderheads simply don't understand basic economics.
"There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen." - Frederic Bastiat
Not to bust your chops, but I'm just wondering if you think we should be spending (as a country) more than we are taking in? I'm not questioning what we are spending it on, I'm just wondering what your opinion is on whether what we put out should be less, more, or the same as what we are taking in? This question is not any type of "set up" or anything, just a simple question.
Sectoral balances, government deficit is a private sector surplus and vice versa. And if you understand sectoral balances as long as we have trade deficit we will need larger government deficits. They will over time have to always spend more than they take in for the economy to grow. The only rare times the government will not have to spend more than they take in is during major economic events such as the tech boom where the velocity of money is so high that a private sector surplus is not necessary. And you can call me crazy all you want but the fact of the matter is we have had a surplus like once or twice in the past 75 years. So it's not like I'm asking the government to do something they haven't been doing our entire lives.
Again, I respect your opinion, but I couldn't disagree more. I think that with our economy in the bad shape that it is, it would only spur our economy if the government spent less money. The tech boom was an anomaly. That is a less than once in a lifetime event that will probably never be repeated. I think that if we had the discipline to spend more responsibly, then it would not only send a signal to American business, but also the world that fiscal responsibility is a better long term goal.
I think that this is what would help our economy. Also, I disagree with your "sectoral balance" statement as you are not looking at the economy as a whole, just in sectors (as you state). BTW, one major way to help with this is to impose the same tariffs on imports as importing countries impose on us.
